New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1887-05-04
AKOTABLE LETTER.

81 NOTABLE LETTER.
The President Writes to Secretary Lamar on the
Rights Of the Settler who in Good Faith Set
tied on the Public Lnnds-The Proper Policy
Suggested. 81 9ss
The President has sent to the secretary
of the interior the following letter in rela-
tion to the controversy between Glilford
Miller, settler and q railroad corpora
tion, involving the ownership OF certain
lands.
THE LETTER.
[ have examined with much care and in.
terest the questions involved in the con-
f1icting claims OF Guilford Miller and the
Northern Pacific Railroad company to
certain public lands in Washington Ter.
ritory. The legal. aspects OF the case have
been examined and passed upon by several
officers OF the government, who do not
agree in their conclusions. Miller claims
to be a settler upon the land in question,
whose possession dates from 1878. He
improvement upon this land and
cultivated the same, and it appears that
he filed his claim to the same under the
homestead law on Dec. %, 1884. The
| railroad company contends that this land
is within the territory from which it was
entitled to select such q quantity Of public
land as might be necessary to supply any
Z
the specified land mentioned in a grant by
the government to said company in aid OF
the construction OF the road-such deficien.
cy being contemplated as likely to arise from
| the paramount right of private purchase,
and settlers within the territory embrac-
ing said granted lands, and that the land
in dispute was thus selected by the com.
pany on Dec. 10, 1888. A large, tract in
Guiding this land, was withdrawn by an
| order Of the interior department from sale
and from prescription and homestead en-
try in 1872, in anticipation of the con,
struction OF said road and deficiency in
it's granted lands. In 1880, upon the fail
ing OF a map OF definite location OF the
road, the land in controversy and that
which had been SO withdrawn was found
to lie outside OF the limit which in
Guided the granted land; but it's with
drawal and reservation from settlement
and entry under our land laws were con-
tinued upon the theory that it was within
the limbs OF indemnity lands which might
be selected by the company, as provided
by the law making the grant.
| THE LEGAL POINTS
in this controversy turned upon the valid
ity and effect OF the withdrawal and selec-
ton OF the land and the continuance
thereof. The attorney general is OF the
opinion that such withdrawal and
reservation were at all times effectual, and
that they operated to prevent Miller from
acquiring any in terest or right to the land
claimed by him. With this Interpretation
Of the law, and the former orders and &C.
ton of the interior department. it will be
seen that their effect has been the with
drawal and reservation since 1872 of
thousands, if not millions OF these lands
from the operation OF the land laws
OF the United States, thus placing them
beyond the reach OF our citizens desiring
under such laws, to. settle and make
homes upon the same; and this has been
done for the benefit OF railroad
company having no fixed, certain or def
mite interest in such lands. In this manner
the beneticient policy and intention OF the
government in relation to the public do
main for all these years has to that extent
been thwarted. There seems to be no
evidence presented showing how much il
any OF this vast tract is necessary for the
fulfillment OF the grant to the railroad
company, nor does there appearSto be any
limitation OF the time wherein which this
fact should be made known and the corpo-
After a lapse OF fifteen years this large body
OF the public domain is still held in reserve
to the exclusion OF settlers for the conven.
fence OF a corporate beneficiary OF the gov
eminent and awaiting it's selection, though
it is entirely certain that much of this re-
served land cannever be honestly claimed by
said corporation. Such condition OF the
public lands should no longer continue. So
far as it is the result of executive rules and
methods they should be aband oned, and
SO far as it is course Of improvident laws
these should be repealed or amended. Our
public domain is 81
OUR NATIONAL WEALTH,
the earnest OF our growth and the heritage
OF our people. 1t should promise limitless
development and riches, relief to a crowd
ing populace and homes to thrift and in
dustry. These inestimable advantages
should be jealousy guarded and q careful
and enlightened policy on the part OF the
government should secure them to the
people In the case under consideration
assume that there is an abundance OF land
within the area which has been reserved for
indemnity in which no citizen or settler has
a legal interest for all purposes OF such in
identification to this railroad company, if
it's grant has not already been satisfied.
I understand, too, that theselections made
by such corporations are not complete and
effectual until the same have been APPROX
ed by the secretary OF the interior, or I'M
less they are made in the words Of the
statute under his direction. You have thus
far taken no action in this matter and
it seems to me that you are in a condition
to deal with the subject in such a manner
I transmit herewith the documents and
papers relating to the case which were sub
mitted to me at my request. Isuggest you
exercise the power and authority you have
IN the premises upon equitable considera-
tions with the presumption and intention
in favor OF the settler and in case you find
this corpora ton is entitled to select any
more OF these lands than has been already
acquired, that you direct it to select in
lieu OF the land which Miller has selected
other lands within the limits Of this indem.
nifty reservation on which neither he nor
any other citizen has in good faith settled
or made Improvements. call your atten.
ton to sections 245 and 241 OF the Revised
Statutes as poin ting out a mode of proceed
ure which may be resorted to if necessary
for the purpose OF reaching a just and equ-
liable disposition OF the case. The sugges-
tions herein contained can, believe, be
adopted without disregard or calling in
question the opinion OF the attorney gener-
al upon the purely legal propositions which
were submitted to him.